<‘TIIE WOMLD IS GOVE^EB TOO MUCH!” 


JVt542S' 

speech 


OF 

CHARLES P^'IOHNSON 


DELIVERED AT 


STURGEON MARKET^. 

Fridayf May 12t1i, 1865. 



GEORGE KNAPP & CO., PRIOTERS AND BINDERS. 

1865 ./ 











“THE WOltLE IS GOVERNEE TOO HUGH!” 


SPEECH 

OF 

CHARLES P. JOHNSON, 

DELIVERED AT 

STTJE.a-Eonsr 

Friday, May 12, 1865. 


Hy PaiENBS AND FEXLOW-CiaMZKNS: I propose, 
npon this occasion, to present some reasons why the 
I new Constitution should not be ratified by the people 


of this State, and should not be supported by the 
members of the party to which I now and have ever 
belonged. In doing so I shall abstain from impugn¬ 
ing the motives of those who I think conscientiously 
■differ with me, noticing them only so far as it may be 
necessary to a full understanding of the subject under 
discussion. And I would premise here, that it is 
a matter of serious regret on my part, to be called by 
a sense of duty to differ so materially in this contest 
with many worthy and estimable men, with whom I 
have been accustomed to act in furthering such meas¬ 
ures and advocating such policies as were deemed 
necessary to the benefit and glory of my country and 
State. Such fact has led me to examine very careful¬ 
ly original opinions of antagonism formed upon the 
first reading of this Constitution, and I am constrain¬ 
ed to say that this consideration, and a closer examin¬ 
ation of the instrument, has given me settled opinions 
of opposition, and I propose not to depart from my 
own settled convictions. And if not for those whom I 
re8i>ect, surely will I not be made to depart from these 
convictions by the senseless yell of senseless men of 
the derisive epithets. Copperhead, sympathiser, &c. 
Cries like this of a purile partisan character are fast 
spending their force; the restoration of peace will dis¬ 
arm them of all terror even to the weak, and the 
shout and howl of opprobrium against those who see 
fit to conscientiously differ with persons, cliques or 
parties, wiU be as harmless as the shout of the maniac 


in his cell. 

Before proceeding further, it may not be inappro- 
nriate nor uninteresting, to revert to certain incidents 
connected with the introduction of the biU under 
which the late Convention was convened. They are 
of some significance, conclusively showing that the 
Radical party is not responsible for the forcing of 
this Constitution before the people of Missouri, and 
raising, at this time, new and exciting issues in our 


already too much distracted State. It is, in fact, a 
violation of the solemn pledge of that party, as made 
by its representatives in the Legislature of 1863-’64— 
a pledge which doubtless gained adherents to the 
support of the biU. I assert that the foisting of this 
Constitution upon us at this time, is done without 
warrant of authority from the masses of the Radical 
party. The truth of the assertion I will substanti¬ 
ate. The bill to provide for the calling of this Con¬ 
vention was drafted and introduced into the Legis¬ 
lature by myself, in December, 1863. No material 
alterations were made in the original bill, with the 
exception of a change in the time for the election of 
delegates and the meeting of the Convention. The 
three clauses specifying what the Convention should 
proceed to do, upon convening, remained intact 
throughout a stormy and acrimonious debate. No 
one objected to those clauses—no amendment was 
offered to them. 

A tew days previous to the introduction of the bill, 
a synopsis of its contents was given to the then re¬ 
porter of the Missouri Democrat, and was telegraphed 
by him to that paper, in the columns of which it ap- 
•^peared. A day or so following the publication, the 
distinguished leader of the late Convention visited 
the Capital and qaUed upon me. He stated that in 
his opinion it was impolitic and wrong to make speci¬ 
fications in the bill to provide for the calling of a Con¬ 
vention, as to what that Convention should do. That 
it should simply state that the delegates on convening 
should frame a new Constitution for the State of Mis¬ 
souri. I differed entirely from such opinion, and 
proposed, after some talk, to leave the matter alto¬ 
gether to the caucus of the Radical members of the 
House and Senate. It was submitted to such caucus, 
and the leader aforesaid, addressed the same at sCme 
length, arguing that only one clause, as mentioned by 
him previously to me, should be incorporated in the 
bill. The arguments in opposition were that the peo¬ 
ple did not want a new Constitution framed at this 
time—that they wanted aCoi:vention simply to de- 










4 


cido upon the abolishment of slavery and the disfran¬ 
chisement of rebels. That presenting a new Consti¬ 
tution to the people would divide the Radical party, 
by presenting a number of new issues, when such 
party could be known to be united only upon the two 
Questions mentioned. A number of other considera^ 
tions were presented in opposition to the one clause 
suggested. A present Judge of the Supreme Court, 
and late Speaker of the House of Representatives, 
Walter L. Lovelace, being among its most earnest op¬ 
ponents. Rut sutlice it to say that such suggestion re¬ 
ceived no countenance at all, and the original bill was 
unanimously endorsed. Yv^ith such understanding, 
the hill went to the representatives of the people. 
Rut there, upon the floor of the General Assembly, 
the representatives of the Radical party declared that 
never would a Convention, if called under that hill, 
enact the roll of the old Convention, and usurp pow¬ 
ers that were not delegated to them by the people. 
It was pledged that the whole object of the Radical 
party, in getting this Convention, was to rid the State 
cf slavery and preserve the elective franchise in puri¬ 
ty to the loyal. Was it over thought of—was it ever 
aimounced by any of the party, that the object in call¬ 
ing a Convention, was to adopt a new Constitution? 
Otherwise, was it not the express calculation 
that it was only to effect the amendments spoken of? 
I ask any man, outside of a prominent member of 
tbe Convention, whether he thought when voting for 
this Convention he was voting for a body that would 
wrangle for months in framing a new Constitution. 
When I introduced the hill I never dreamed of such 
a thing, nor when I cast my vote for a Convention 
at the last election. And I suppose no other sane 
man thought so either. In view of these facts, 
allow me, in all candor, to ask a few questions 
of my friends who support this new Consti¬ 
tution. All of you will remember what a 
hitter warfare we carried on against the 
cld Convention, and how obnoxious it became to 
the people. First, because it departed from its legit¬ 
imate sphere of authority and legislated; and second, 
in doing so legislated in direct opposition to the 
known wishes of the people. In that war upon the 
old Convention, the Radical party assumed the' true 
doctrine, that Conventions have no autiiority to go 
beyond the express powers granted, and, as a true 
Radical, I still hold to that doctrine. In other words, 
if a Convention is called to do one thing, and dele¬ 
gates are elected by the people to do that thing, they , 
have no warrant of authority to go to work and do 
another thing, which the people never thought of at 
the time they elected them. And it is no excuse to 
such action that it is submitted to the people, as is done 
in this instance, for ratification or rejection; for if 
they can act at all in such manner, if they can as¬ 
sume such power, they can assxune such further pow¬ 
er, as is intended in this very case, as will necessarily 
compel a ratification of their acts. Submitting to the 
people is no excuse for the arbitrary and unwarrant¬ 
ed power assumed. They were not delegated to act 
at all upon such matters as they did. It was the same 
kind of an assumption of power that was so justly 
denounced by the Radical party at Jefferson City, 
against the old Convention. Tlie old Constitution! 
and even this new one, asserts “that ail political 
power is vested in and derived from the people.” 


A natural corollary is, that delegates elected to 
change the organic law in certain particulars 
have no right to change it in another. Did the people 
delegate their power to this Convention to frame a 
new Constitution? Where is the patent of pov/er? 
Is it in the hill where each clause uses the word 
“amendments?” Or where is tlie instruction from 
the Radical party to delegates, as members of that 
party to so act? Is it expressed in any word, speech 
or resolution •given to the people by any prominent 
member or meeting of that party? If so, I have 
never seen it. There has been an imitression extant, 
that Conventions are sovereign on all questions. The 
illustrations afforded during the rebellion, of the per¬ 
nicious effects of admitting such a theory, should 
sweep it into a deserved oblivion. But you say it is 
submitted to the people for ratification or rejection. 
Well, the Convention was not empowered to do even 
that. If you grant that they have the right to depart 
from the express powers delegated at the time of the 
election, then you must grant that they possess the 
right to prevent classes from voting on the question 
of ratification. In other words, they can prevent a 
fair election and compel a ratification of their as¬ 
sumed power. If you grant the one, they can easily 
take the other. Conventions should never be en¬ 
dorsed in any act they perform, outside of the 
express ones which they are delegated to i>er- 
form when their delegates were elected. Tliis Con¬ 
stitution should he defeated, if for no other rea¬ 
son than that the Convention assumed to do that 
which they were not elected to do. And the Radi¬ 
cal party should defeat it, if for no other reason 
thnn that the majority of the Convention violated the 
pledge and the announced policy and principles of 
the party. And now let me ask, in view of what has 
been said, who is responsible if the radical party is 
divided? Is it those who oppose this Constitution, 
if for no other reason than to be true to a solemn 
pledge? Or is it those who have despotically forced it 
upon the people of the State, without individual or 
party solicitation? 

My friends, we are in no ordinary emergency. 
This filing of adopting a Constitution is a serious mat¬ 
ter. It is one that will pome home to every person in 
the State. It is our form of Government—our or¬ 
ganic law—and should be an ark of safety. In a Con¬ 
stitution, above all things, we -want incorporated just 
principles, for obvious reasons: That we and our 
children, and our children’s children are to live un¬ 
der it; aud it is pre-eminently the educator of the 
people. It should be such. Our whole safety as a 
Republic depends upon the reverence and love the 
people have for their Constitution, and the elements 
of such attraction should be in it. If wrong is in the 
Constitution, the people will learn wrong. If intoler¬ 
ance, narrow-mindedness, selfishness and bigotry are 
in the Constitution, they infuse into and so ^^tiate 
the body politic. Slavery existed in Missouri so te¬ 
naciously against all reason, because the Constitution 
taught the people pro-slaveryism. Therefore be on 
your guard—enquire into this subject as closely as 
you would if you were going to send a beloved 
child to school, about the character of the 
teacher and his system of instruction. 
Do not he alarmed at the clamor of party. It is no;, 
nor can it he made a party question. Parties exist 






5 


generally on one or two main issues. There are fifty 
issues in this. Constitutions are marie to govern par¬ 
ties not parties to govern Constitutions. 

Let us proceed to examine this new Constitution. 

In the first place 1 have yet to meet the man who 
has not got serious objections to this Constitution. 
Many gooa men among the number, however, state 
that they favor it anyhow because it disfranchises 
rebels. They care not how infamous are other pro¬ 
visions ; they consider it a more eftective disfranchise¬ 
ment law than that of the old Convention. This 
they consider as the all important requisite for the 
peace and prosperity of the State. Upon the same 
principle it would bo advisable for the delegation in 
the Legislature from St. Louis, during the next ses¬ 
sion. to neglect all the industrial, mechanical, educa¬ 
tional and commercial interests of their constituents, 
and devote their whole energy and attention to devise 
means to more effectually punish thieves who infest 
our city; and to carry the illustration further, on 
their return for our citizens to exclaim with one voice, 
“Well done, thou good and faithful servants: you 
neglected all the interests of our great and growing 
city; you threw aside, as unworthy of notice, meas¬ 
ures necessary for our increasing wants and develop¬ 
ments ; you have almost ruined us by your inatten¬ 
tion and neglect, but you did pass stringent statutes 
against thieves, and we indorse you.” If it is pre¬ 
sumed that the people of Missouri will so address the 
party after the adoption of tliis Constitution, I am 
convinced, from what little experience 1 liave of hu¬ 
man nature, that the presumption is decidedly erro 
neons. 

Article second of this Constitution is framed with 
the intention of preserving the elective J&anchise in 
purity to the loyal people of the State. The Conven¬ 
tion was called to devise a just system for the attain¬ 
ment of this encL It has been very rightly and is 
yet deemed necessary to place such restrictions upon 
those who have been wilfully engaged in this rebel¬ 
lion, as will prevent them from exercising the full 
rights of citizenship in a Government they so lately 
madly and wickedly attempted to overturn. Such 
restrictions should be as a punishment for their 
crimes, and inflicted for the purpose that all punish¬ 
ments are, aside from this, to deter others from com¬ 
mitting like offences. It had previously been found 
by local experience that the system of test oaths was 
defective and could not be relied upon to compass 
the deared end. It was expected that the wisdom of 
this body would devise other and more rational 
means. But herein they failed and adopted the 
same method as that adopted by the old Convention. 
The following sections from article second, designates 
the classes of persons proscribed citizenship, the 
same to be carried out by means of a test odtb: 

“Sec. 3. At any election held by the people under 
this Constitution, or in pursuance of any law of this 
State, or under any ordinance, or by law of any mu¬ 
nicipal corporation, no person shall bd deemed a 
qualified voter who has ever been In armed hostility 
to the United States, or to the lawful authoritiSs 
thereof, or to the Government of this State; or has 
ever given aid, comfort, countenance, or support to 
persons engaged in any such hostility; or has ever, in 
any manner, adhered to the enemies, foreign and do¬ 
mestic, of the United States, either by contributing 


to them or by unlawfully sending within their lines, 
goods letters, or information; or has ever disloyally 
held communication with such enemies; or has ever 
advised or aided any person to gnter the service of 
such enemies; or has ever, by act or word, manifest¬ 
ed his adherance to the cause of such enemies, cr his 
desire for their triumph over the arms of the Unite d 
States, or his sympathy with those engaged in excit¬ 
ing or carrying on rebellion against the United States; 
or has ever, except under overpowering compul¬ 
sion, submitted to the authority, or been in the 
service of the so-called (“Confederate States of 
America;” or Las ever left this State, and gone with¬ 
in the lines of the armies of tbe so-called “Confede¬ 
rate States of America,” with the purpose of adher¬ 
ing to said States or armies; or has ever been a mem¬ 
ber of, or connected with, any order, society, or org¬ 
anization, inimical to tbe Government of the United 
States or to the Government of this State; or has 
ever been engaged in guerilla warfare against loyal 
inhabitants of tbe United States, or in that descrip¬ 
tion of marauding commonly known as “bushwhack¬ 
ing;” or has ever knowingly and willingly harbored, 
aided, or countenanced any person so engaged; or 
has ever come into or left this State, for the purpose 
of avoiding enrollment for the draft into tbe military 
service of tbe United States, or has ever, with a vievr 
to avoid enrollment in the militia of this State, or to 
escape the performance of duty therein, or for any 
other purpose, enrolled himself, or authorised him¬ 
self to be enrolled, by or before any officer, or dis- 
loj'al, or as a Southern sympathiser, or in any other 
terms indicting his dissatisfaction to the Government 
of the United States in its contest with rebellion, or 
his sympathy with those engaged in such rebellion; 
or, having ever voted at any election by the people in 
this State, or in any other of the United States, or 
held office in this State, or in any other of the United 
States, or in any of their Territories, or under the 
United States, sliall thereafter have sought or received 
under claim of alienage, the protection of any foreign 
government, through any consul or other officer there¬ 
of, in order to secure exemption from military duty 
in this State, or in the army of the United Stater?; nor 
shall any such person be capable of holding in this 
State any office of honor, trust or profit under its 
authority; or of being an officer, councilman, direc¬ 
tor, trustee, or other manager of any corpora¬ 
tion. public or private, now existing or hereaf¬ 
ter established by its authority; or of acting as a pro¬ 
fessor or teacher in any educational institution, or in 
any common or other school; or of holding any real 
estate or other property in trust for the use of any 
church, religious society or cor^egation. But the 
foregoing provisions in relation to acts done against 
the United States shall not apply to any person not a 
citizen thereof, who shall ha^e committed such ^cts 
while in the service of some foreign country at w'a? 
with the United States, and who has, since such acts, 
been naturalized, or may hereafter be naturalized, 
under the laws of the United States; and the oath of 
loyalty hereinafter prescribed, when taken by any such 
person,shall be considered as taken in such sense.” 

In the first place I look upon this section taken in 
its entirety, and judging simply of the intentions of 
its framers, as the most cowardly and diabolical pro¬ 
vision that was ever incorporated in any law extant. 









But before I mention my reasons for so thinking let 
me say that I am firmly convinced that this section 
will not disfranchise rebels, as such, who should se¬ 
curely and permanently be disfranchised. If the doc¬ 
trine of once a rebel, always a rebel holds good, the 
same rule may be applied to a perjurer; once a per¬ 
jurer, always a perjurer; and it is not likely, as some 
men think, that the American people will become 
common informers, and watch at the ballot box to 
send men to the Penitentiary. Let us see the prac¬ 
tical workings of this system; take any well known 
citizen and place him at the poll of any ward in the 
city ami let a thousand men come forward, take the 
oath and vote, and let five hundred of them be rebels, 
and he cannot knowingly chailenge five of them. If 
he happens to know one person who takes the 
oath to be a rebel, to make this system 
of any effect he must act the informer and appear be¬ 
fore the Grand Jury and then before the Petit Jury. 
The same may be said in regard to applications for 
certificates under the registry law. Now how many 
citizens are going to stand at the polls or beside the 
register to preserve the franchise in purity to the loy¬ 
al people? It is a wonder that the ingenious brain 
that constructed this remarkable section did not 
strike the true depth of a penetrative statesmanship 
afc once, and provide for the hiring of pubh'c inform¬ 
ers to watch at the polls and registers for rebel voters. 
It would have carried out the general spirit of the 
law admirably. It is no effectual system then, to 
prevent real criminal rebels from voting, because per¬ 
jury is a small cjime to the man who has committed 
treason. But I return to the original proposition that 
this section is in spirit and substance diabolic, and I 
will add not at all in accordance with our ideas of 
republicanism. I yield to no one in this 
broad land in the desire to punish trait¬ 
ors as they deserve to be punished, but in doing 
so I desire to retain the equanimity of the Judge and 
not the fury of tb e mob. I want to be ruled by the im¬ 
mutable principles of justice, tempered with mercy, 
and not by the brutal instincts of revenge. I prefer at 
all times the temper of Hale to that of Jeffries. 

It is unnecessary to stop and note the unpardonable 
blunder in the specification that “ no person shall be 
deemed a qualified voter who has ever been in armed 
hostility to the United States, or to the lawful author¬ 
ities thereof, or to the Government of this State.” 
Wliether it means as it reads or not, I know that it is 
not going to distranchise the men who took Camp 
Jackson and run Claib. Jackson and his Legislature 
out of the State. But let me call your attention to 
the following: No person shall be deemed a qualified 
voter who “ has ever, by act or word, manifested his 
adherence to the cause of such enemies, or his desire 
for their triumph over the arms of the United States; 
cr his sympathy with those engaged in exciting or 
carrying on rebellion against the United States.” To 
the glory of the American people be it said that such 
enactments as the above have never disgraced the 
statute book, even in times of war. It has been usual 
to exercise the right of free speech, and I believe the 
policy of Air. Lincoln’s Administration was never to in¬ 
terfere with such right unless it was used with a mani¬ 
fest intention to thwart the designs of the Govern¬ 
ment and disturb the public peace—^when it assumes 
the cnaracter of an act and is not a word. It is not pre¬ 


sumable that you can force a man to think different¬ 
ly from his convictions, and he has a right to express 
his opinions whatever they may be, if he does not 
interfere with the rights of others or disturb the pub¬ 
lic peace. In our country we have struggled for this 
right and we have generally maintained it. The re¬ 
bellion was doubtless accelerated by the proscriptions 
of the Southern party against free speech on the sla¬ 
very question. Let us not follow their example. A 
person has a right to oelieve there is no God, and so be¬ 
lieving he has a right to express his opinions. He 
has a right to think that war is wrong and should 
never be resorted to under any circumstances, and 
he has a right to say so. Mr. Greeley had 
an undoubted right at the time of the 
commencement of our difficulties to say that 
it might be best to let 'the seceded States go rather 
than to wade through tte blood that would be neces- 
sarilly spilled to retain them in the Union. Others 
might not so think but he had a right to think and 
say so. I might say the same of Mr. Conway, of Kan¬ 
sas. But their saying and thinking so would not make 
me favor their disfranchisement if they lived in Mis¬ 
souri. The distinguished leader of the late Conven¬ 
tion had a perfect right to be a pro-slavery man and 
sign and indorse a non-coercion sermon, and, though 
a strict construction of the above might disfranchise 
him, he ought not to be disfranchised. Under martial 
law, of course, men liave been arrested and impris¬ 
oned for expressing opinions. But martial law is an 
anomaly necessitated by great exigencies, alien to a 
Democratic Government, and best to be got rid of as 
soon as possible. And because men may be arrested 
for expressing opinions when living under martial 
law. that fact neither makes it an offence nor em¬ 
powers civil Government to punish a citizen for the 
quiet expression of any opinion, be it ever so alien 
to the generally received notions of man’s duty to in¬ 
dividuals or government. De Quincey has argued upon 
murder, which formerly, in certain cases, was deemed 
petit treason, as one of the fine arts; a very pernicious 
doctrine, but I take it that the Engli.sh Government 
would have appeared in rather a ridiculous light to 
have prosecuted him for it. Acts only axe recognized 
by the genius of our law as being punishable, and the 
insertion of these words, “or w'ord,” in this clause is 
simply atrocious. It is worthy of note that even the 
leader of the late Convention indulged in a very fiery 
philippic against the insertion of this word “word.” 
It will be verily a startling fact to the historian, but I 
hope, for the honor of my native State, itwill pass into 
oblivion so soon that history will not find it. But note 
further: “No person shall be a qualified voter who has 
ever, by act or word, ngfinifested his sympathy with 
those engaged in exciting or carrying on rebellion 
against the United States.” It is a little diffi¬ 
cult to tell what kind of sympathy 
expressed comes within the meam’ng of this clause. 
The oath specifies directly or indirectly manifested 
their sympathy by act or word. In the oath the mani¬ 
festing sympathy by woi'd is referred to as an act; it 
means that the use of words of sympathy is an act 
and punishes it, as such. But indirect sympathy 
might be construed to be the sympathy that a father 
or mother has for a son, a sister for a brother, a wife 
for a husband. If we put such a construction on it, 
this law essays to interdict the noblest instincts of 










7 


love and alfection, and punish what God gives as 
virtues. All who are familiar with the history of 
rebellion in Missouri are aware that a great number 
of the volunteers who went from the State 
with Price, were young men, led off by 
the excitement of the times and the 
influence of wily political leaders. They left, as a 
general thing, fathers, mothers, sisters, and “nearer 
and dearer ones” still behind. Their career has been 
a disastrous one, and they have suffered as they 
should for their rash offences. Their relations be¬ 
hind may have been good citizens. They may have tried 
to prevent their going, but when gone, and the sound 
of war and carnage was wafted in every breath to 
the homestead, and the mother knew her erring boy 
was amid the tempest of battle, was it for her to close 
up the avenues of her heart and breathe no word of 
sympathy for him? Was it a punishable crime for 
her to.do so? Or the lone wife at eventide, when the 
shadows of night darkened the gloom of her soul, and 
she spoke words of sympathy for her husband, in im¬ 
agination out in the world perhaps a stark corpse on 
a bloody field, did she commit a punishable crime? 
A crime to manifest hy word a sympathy for the 
loved, even though they be criminal? Shame upon 
the man who says it. But, say you, it does not mean 
such expressions of sympathy. WeU, what is an in¬ 
direct expression of sympathy with those engaged in 
exciting or carrying on rebellion against the United 
States? But suppose we take what the support¬ 
ers of this Constitution say it means,—that it 
means an expression of sympathy for the cause which 
they are engaged in—fighting against the Govern¬ 
ment, does it make the provision any the less odious? 
Will not the arguments previously aflvanced touch¬ 
ing free speech, equally as well apply in this case? 
Most assuredly. If the wile, the mother, or the sister 
expressed sympathy for the cause in which the hus¬ 
band, the son, or the orother was engaged in, and sim¬ 
ply this and no more, no generous Government after 
that cause is crushed, should punish them. It smacks 
too much of tyranny, oppression and proscription, for 
tpranny, oppression and proscriptions sake. And the 
pumshment is not confined to aisfranchisement. The 
penalty for these newly invented crimes is also anoth¬ 
er disqualification; lor no person who nas by act or 
word manifested his adherence to such enemies or his 
desire for their triumpn over the arms of the United 
States, or his sympathy with those engaged in 
exciting or carrying on rebellion agamst the 
United States, shall be capable of 
being an ofiicer. Councilman, Director, Trustee, 
or other manager of any corporation, public or pri¬ 
vate, now existing or hereafter established by au¬ 
thority of the State or of acting as a professor or teach¬ 
er in any educational institution, or in any common 
or other school, or of holding any real estate or other 
property in trust for the use of any Church, reli¬ 
gious society or congregation. Consequently the 
mother, the wife and the sister, according to a reas¬ 
onable construction if they ever have manifested by 
^o(yrd a sympathy for those who are bound to them 
by the nearest and dearest ties of the heart are pla¬ 
ced in the same catagory with the busbwhacker and 
his harborer, and disqualified from pursuing the vo¬ 
cations that may afford them sustenance for them¬ 
selves and children. A great State making a petty 


war upon school-mistresses. And the citizen peacea¬ 
ble and quiet and observant to ail laws, for exercising 
a right thought to be guaranteed by the Constitu¬ 
tion of the United States and of this State, the legiti¬ 
mate exercise of a free speech, is branded as a 
rebel, disfranchised and disqualified from 
persuing accustomed fields of honor and in¬ 
dustry. Let me tell you, my friends, that if certain 
classes proscribed in this section cannot be identified 
with our people oy virtue of common duties, hopes, 
iInterests and privileges, they snould be eliminated 
from the body politic altogether, for the benefit of 
themselves and their children, ourselves and our 
children. 

The prolixity and ambiguity of this section is a 
very serious fault. If you consider that the oath re¬ 
quires every citizen. before he votes, to take an oath 
that he is weU acquainted vrith the terms of such 
section, and has carefdUy considered the same, you 
will easily perceive what a snare there is for the un¬ 
wary. Few people, I take it, can understand it in 
all its details. It presupposes a knowledge among aU 
classes of legal phraseology which does not exist. 
Every conscientious man, be be ever so intelhgent in 
the general affairs of the world, must stop and reflect 
very seriously whether he can swear that he under¬ 
stands that wbichlawyers are already wrangling about. 
It is an outrage to adopt rules so abstruse to apply 
to the ordinary actions of men. Above all things 
simplicity should characterize the provisions of a 
Constitution. And how many new kinds of acts are 
here set forth as punishable for pcj^jury? If a man 
swears that he does understand it, and he does 
not, he is liable to punishment for perjury. If a man 
who helped to overturn the State Government of 
Claib. Jackson takes this oath, he has* no assurance 
that a future Judge, in instructing a jury, may not 
say that the State Government means the Executive 
and Legislature at the time, and it is perjury, under 
the Constitution, for a person so acting to take the 
oath. The same in regard to manifesting sympathy 
by word. A person may take the oath, and think he 
is doing right—^because his manifestations were sim¬ 
ply indirect expressions, prompted by generosity 
toward the person and not the cause, and 
a Judge may decide differently, and say he 
is liable to punishment for perjury under the 
Constitution. The gist of crime—the intent—In 
entirely abrogated. It is snare upon snare, 
it is trap upon trap; it is worthy of the brain of a 
tyrant. “Sylla,” says Montesquieu, “who confound¬ 
ed tyranny, anarchy and liberty, made the Cornelian 
laws. He seemed to have contrived regulations 
merely with a view to create crimes. Thus, distin¬ 
guishing a number of actions by the name of murder 
he found murderers in aU parts; and, by a practice 
but too much followed, he laid snares, sowed thorns 
and opened precipices wherever the citizens set their 
feet.” 

The comparison between the action of that bloody 
proscriber and the majority in the late Convention 
wifi, be readily perceived when we read in Sec. 14, 
Art. Ill, that whoever shall “take said oath falsely, 
by swearing or affirmation, shall, on conviction 
thereof, be adjudged guilty of perjury, and be pun¬ 
ished by imprisonment in the Penitentiary not less 
than two years.” It is a fact worthy of note that the 









8 


words “knotcingly’' and “wilfully,” heretofore deem¬ 
ed by jurists and legislators so appropriate and 
necessary in laws for the government of peo¬ 
ple in this world of error and ignorance, are 
with characteristic humanity omitted by the framers 
of this Constitution. 

Again, the Convention in this article intentionally 
violates the pledged faith of this State in that they 
disfranchise those who laid down their arms and come 
back on the promise of the State Government, with 
the indorsement of the United States that they should 
receive the benefits of and be treated as citizens. 
Many of those, who in the first excitement of the 
conflict were led off, accepted willingly this oflfer, and 
returned to their homes. Some of them, we know, 
entered the service of the United States, and have 
fully repaid for their original error by fighting upon 
many of the hardest contested battle-fields of the 
country. I know not how many of such persons 
there are, but there are doubtless several thousand in 
the State and our armies. But I care not if there 
was only one solitary man, I would vote against this 
Constitution, because it disfranchised him. If 
there is any thing that should be respected, it 
is the pledged faith of a State. The 
honor of Missouri should remain untarnished, and 
this blot never be Incorporated in her organic law. 
It is a burning shame already to think that a Con¬ 
vention of our citizens should so far forget the dig¬ 
nity of their position as to attempt to repudiate a sol¬ 
emn pledge, affecting the happiness and prosperity of 
a large class of citizens, a class who were courageous 
enough to fight for an error when they thought it 
right, and courageous enough to abandon it when 
they found it an error. If one party can so easily for¬ 
get the bond of promise of tbe State, the next party 
may adopt the precedent, and forget it likewise, and 
the people become so demoralized that they wiU ap¬ 
plaud the act until the finger of a righteous scorn 
will cause no blush of shame. I never have been able 
yet to learn how this Convention could conscientious¬ 
ly attempt to do this thing, unless upon the principle 
that when they met the leading parties therein deter¬ 
mined with malice aforethought to reverse the old 
theory of the common law, that it is better for ninety- 
nine guilty persons to go free than that ^one innocent 
one suffer, and go upon the one that ninety-nine in¬ 
nocent persons had better suffer than that one guilty 
one go free. 

And right here let me say, in parenthesis, that, if it 
were not for the seriousness of the subject, one might 
stop to be amused at the lofty inspiration of states¬ 
manship which struck the framers of this Constitu¬ 
tion when they caused to be incorporated section 17 
of this same article, wherein it is provided that no 
person, who shall make or become directly or indi¬ 
rectly interested in any bet or wager depending upon 
the result of any election, shall vote at such election! 
This puts an end to wagers of boots or hats upon 
favorite candidates. 

But now let us pass for a moment from this third 
section and see in what manner it is intended to carry 
out this wholesale proscription. The manner pro¬ 
vided is equally objectionable. Bead: * ^ # 

A writer in one of our public prints has so forcibly 
shown the objections to this system that I copy from 
him. He says: 


Art. II. Sec. 4. “ The General Assembly shall 
immediately provide by law for a complete and uni¬ 
form registration by election districts of the names of 
qualified voters of the State, which registration shall 
be evidence of the qualification of all registered voters 
to vote at any election hereafter held. But no person 
shall be excluded from voting at any election on ac¬ 
count of not being registered tmtil the General As¬ 
sembly shall have passed an act of registration, and 
the same shall have been carried into effect. 
After which no person shall vote unless his name 
shall have been registered at least ten days before the 
day of election. And the feet of such registraticn 
shall be not otherwise shown than by the register, or 
an authentic copy thereof certified to the Judges of 
Election by the registering officer or officers, or other 
constituted authority. A new registration shall be 
made within sixty days next preceding the tenth day 
prior to every biennial election, and, after it shall 
have been made, no person shall establish his right to 
vote by the fact of his name appearing on any previ¬ 
ous register.” 

Sec. 6 . “ Until such system of registration shall 
have been established, every person shall, at the time 
of offering to vote and before his 
vote shall be received, take an oath in the 
terms prescribed in the next succeeding section. Af¬ 
ter such a system shall have been established, the said 
oath shall be taken and subscribed by the voter at 
each time of his registration. Any person declining 
to take said oath shall not be allowed to vote or to be 
registered as a qualified voter. The taking thereof 
shall not be deemed conclusive evidence of the right 
of such person to vote or to be registered as a voter, 
but such right may, notwithstanding, be disproved. 
And after a system of registration shall have 
been established, all evidence for and against the 
right of any such person as a qualified voter 
shall be heard and passed upon by the registering of¬ 
ficer or officers, and not by the Judges of Election. 
The registering officer or officers shall keep a register 
of the names of persons rejected as voters, and the 
names shall be certified to Judges of Election, and 
they shall receive the ballot of any such registered 
voter offering to vote, marking the same and certify¬ 
ing the vote thereby given as rejected, but no such 
vote shall be received unless the party offering it 
take, at the time, the oath of loyalty hereinafter pre¬ 
scribed.” * * * 

>ii=****#*#«f# 

“The objections to the two sections just quoted are 
that they establish, in the name of suffrage, essential 
tyranny. 

1. The Begister is to say who shall vote. 

2. There is no appeal from his decision. 

3. The Judge of the Election sTiall not consider the 
evidence on which he has acted; nor is it provided 
that any other tribunal shall ever review or control 
his opinion. 

4. If he is faithful and honest the power here given 
is too large to be placed in the hands of any one officer 
with no appea from his judgment. 

5. If unfaithful, dishonest, the door or corruption 
is left; open, and the temptation to improperly influ¬ 
encing the officer is guarded by nothing whatever. 

The rejection of a few votes by the Begister decides 
the election. The Begister is of course, in many in- 







9 


stances, up for sale, and whoever can buy him is re¬ 
turned. In some old Engbsh boroughs during the 
last century the votes by which a member was td be 
returned to Parliament were very few; and it was no¬ 
torious that these votes were always bought. It was 
knoAvn as the “rotten borough system.” This regis¬ 
try scheme is worse than the rotten borough. There 
you had to buy several men; here you need only buy 
one. The provisions of the above sections arc posi¬ 
tively monstrous. It is wasting time to comment up¬ 
on them. One who does not see at a glance what 
they are will never see. A registry system is called 
for, but with proper guards.” 

Who even imagined that this Convention would adopt 
the plan of the old Convention for the disfranchise¬ 
ment of rebels, after the system they inaugurated had 
proved so weak and inefficient. All loyal men admit 
that there are classes of men in the State who should 
be disfranchised, at the same time thinking men ap¬ 
preciate the difficulty of framing a just system ap¬ 
plicable to the subject. It is one requiring the highest 
exercise of calm and thoughtful statesmanship. It 
was not grappled at all by the late Convention. It 
was either a subject beyond their comprehension, or 
their love for the models of a very olden time made 
them act as they did upon it. There is a suspicion 
that it was a little of both. They gave the matter, in 
fact, no serious consideration at all. They just in¬ 
corporated a kind of blind fury that possessed certain 
prominent actors in their body into an oath which, if 
most any body takes, as I have shown, will make him 
liable to the punishment of peijury. If they 
had considered at all, they might have 
discriminated a little as to the extent of proscription 
and not proscribed all alike. The slightest reflection 
would have suggested a better plan than this. A 
Board ot Commissioners sitting as a Court with open 
doors, to register voters, has been suggested, the re¬ 
jected voter to have an appeal to the highest tribunal 
in the State, if he desires. This would be a much 
better plan. But there are many plans that might be 
adopted, and all of them better than this test oath 
system. The conscientious man will respect 
this oath, though never having done an act 
against the Government, of the United States 
or aided or abetted the enemies there¬ 
of. The rebel who has aided and abetted such 
enemies will take it and win be rarely, if ever, 
punished. Therefore it is inefficient in protecting us 
against those criminals, whom we should be protected 
against, and at the same time it prevents 
certain others from exercising the rights of citizen¬ 
ship who are as much entitled to it as you 
or I, or any member of that Convention. 
There are many men who were against us in the days 
of Camp Jackson—and, in fact, how few were not, 
taking out our German fellow-citizens—who are to be 
met upon the streets of our city with honorable scars, 
received in fighting the battles of our country. Some 
of a like kind I could mention who died under our 
flag, and whose bones lie mouldering in Southern 
graves. 

But men say that it is better anyhow than the old 
Convention Ordinance, and it is the only remedy wo 
have. This I deny. The Legislature this winter can 
pass a registry law that wiU more efiectually disfran¬ 
chise rebels than this Constitution will. And sup¬ 


pose they could not, is the Eadical party not strong 
enough to amend the old Constitution? The remedy 
is in our hands now, but 1 verily fear that if the Ead¬ 
ical party indorses this Constitution, they will not be 
able to remedy any thing again in this State, for they 
cannot stand long under this load. 

Take it in either light, therefore, it is no excuse for 
a man to vote for this Constitution because of its dis¬ 
franchisement of rebels. It goes not in the right way 
to secure us against rebels, and it goes too far In its 
attempt and intention to proscribe citizenship. The 
spirit that actuated and carried beyond the bounds of 
aft reason its framers, I hope is not the spirit that is 
to be manifested in the efforts of the American peo¬ 
ple to reorganize the Eepublic. If so, do you think 
the nation’s wounds will soon be healed; that peace 
and good will among men will soon come again? Be¬ 
lieve me, I have ever thought our cause was holy and 
that rebellion would be crushed. But there has been 
a shadow sometimes upon my soul, caused by the re¬ 
flection that, in the solution of the great questions 
arising from the ashes, as it were, of rebellion, 
our temper might lead us to adopt policies 
and inaugurate practices which might uncon¬ 
sciously and imperceptibly encircle us as with 
gyves of steel like unto such we never dreamed of? 
We stand upon the threshold of the most important 
duties. The warrior has done his work and done it 
grand and nobly. Let the Statesman now do like¬ 
wise and the Eepublic of America will be in truth the 
asylum of liberty for the people of all nations. Let 
us in performing our allotted duties be actuated by a 
high and noble impulse, and “with malice tow^ards 
none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right, 
as God gives us to see the right; let us strive’ to 
finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s 
wounds, to care forihim who shall have borne the bat¬ 
tle, and for his widow and his orphans, and to do ail 
wliich may achieve and cherish a quiet and lasting 
peace among ourselves and with all nations. 

1 have shown now, my friends, that this article on 
disfranchisement is wrong in spirit and form, and will 
prove to you ineffectual to secure to you the elective 
franchise in purity. No Union man, therefore, should 
cast his vote for it upon that ground. It stands be¬ 
fore you, separate and distinct from this issue, in all 
its deformity; and if it does not present an effective 
system of disfranchisement, pray what good is there 
in it? Verily, no good, but rather much evil. 

There is no evil which the American people should 
be more careful to guard against than the interference 
of civil jurisdiction with the freedom of religion. The 
history of the world shows it to be the most prolific 
source of commotion and woe. The major portion of 
the great wars of modern times have sprung from the 
assumption of civil rulers to interfere and regulate in 
matters of conscience. Its consequences brought the 
exiled Pilgrims to Plymouth Eock; and from the 
time of the foundation of the Eepublic it has been 
instilled into the public mind by the wisest and best 
of our statesmen, to leave religion to perform her own 
functions without any interference ft’om the State. 
In fact, it is generally deemed that one of our dearest 
birthrights is the liberty of conscience gained by such 
principle in the fundamental organism of our Govern¬ 
ment. 

The principle is departed trom in this Constitu- 




10 


tion and power is assumed and interference made 
Avitli the liberties of conscience. And it is done too 
in so manifest a spirit of intolerance as to be worthy 
of the strongest condemnation. It is done with the 
avowed object of striking at a class of religionists in 
our midst. So little reflection was there in the lead¬ 
ers in this Convention that they wilfully incorpora¬ 
ted a spirit of intolerance, the evil seeds of which 
may take root, spring up and ripen into the most se¬ 
rious complications. Two sections in the Bill of Rights 
read: 

12. That no religious corporation can be es¬ 
tablished in this State; except that by a general law, 
uniform throughout the State, any church, or reli¬ 
gious society or congregation may become a body cor¬ 
porate for the sole purpose of acquiring, holding, 
using, and disposing of so much land as maybe requir¬ 
ed for a house of public worship, a chapel, a parson¬ 
age, and a burial ground, and managing the same, 
and contracting in relation to such land, and the 
buildings thereon, through a Board of Trustees, se¬ 
lected by themselves; but the quantity of land to be 
held by any such body corporates, in connection with 
a house of worship or a parsonage, shall not exceed 
fiveacres in the country,or one acre in a town or city. 

13. That every gift, sale, or devise of land to any 
minister, public teacher, or preacher of the Gospel, 
as such, or to any religious sect, order, or denomina¬ 
tion ; or to, or for the support, use or benefit of, or in 
trust for, any minister, public teacher, or preacher of 
the Gospel, as such, or any religious sect, order, or 
denomination; and every gift or sale of goods, or 
chattels to go in succession, or to take place after the 
death of the seller or donor, to or for such support, 
use. or benefit; and also every devise of goods or 
chattels, to or for the support, use, or benefit of any 
minister, public teacher, or preacher of the Gospel, 
as such, or any religious sect, order, or denomination, 
shall be void; except always any gifts, sale, or devise 
of land to a church, religious societiy or congrega¬ 
tion, or to any person or persons in trust for the use 
of a church, religious society or congregation, wheth¬ 
er incorporated or not, for the uses and purposes, and 
within the hmitations of the next preceding clause of 
this article. 

The first section is a change from the old Constitu¬ 
tion ; a power is granted to form religious corporations, 
but at the same time certain restrictions are placed 
upon them. This is the assumption of a very danger¬ 
ous power in the State and the establishing of a very 
pernicious precedent. If you once grant that Conven¬ 
tions can j)ermit religious corporations and then regu¬ 
late them, you open the field for unlimited legislation 
on the subject of religious corporations. At one time 
they may be restricted, at another unlimited privi¬ 
leges may be granted to them, according to the feel¬ 
ings or inclinations of dominant parties. It admits 
of a right of the civil jurisdiction to directly interfere 
i n matters of religion, a theory now, and I hope ever 
to be, entirely repugnant to our ideas of liberty of 
conscience. 

Tlie next section not only interferes with matters of 
religion, but it gives you to understand that that in¬ 
terference is for the express purpose of striking at a 
certain one of the religions of the country. It de¬ 
prives you of the right to dispose of your property as 
you see fit, for the evident purpose that disadvantage 


may come upon that religious organization. I see no 
other reason for the incorporation of this section. 
Well, I say this, if it is insisted on, as essential to the 
general welfare, to legislate to retard the advancement 
of church organizations in certain matters, as 
^s the intention in this section, I would 
prefer having it done otherwise than at the ex¬ 
pense of my personal liberty. In this you are pre¬ 
vented from making a gift, sale or devise, negatively, 
to any minister, public teacher, or preacher of the 
gospel, as such, or to any religious sect, order or de¬ 
nomination; but you may to a church, religious soci¬ 
ety or congregation. If you feel disposed when you 
die, to leave any thing to the Presbyterian, Baptist, 
Methodist, Episcopalian or Catholic church, you need 
not do it, for the devise will be void. Such wide¬ 
spread charity is not allowable under this Conslitu- 
tion. You must be more narrow-minded and selfish; 
we, the State, insist upon it, and we v/ill make you 
be so. You may leave it to the church you attend, 
the First Presbyterian, the Second Baptist, etc. The 
animus is plain enough for everybody who runs to 
read. It is generally the case that gifts and devises 
to the Catholic church are to the whole body, and 
used as the hierarchy see fit. The framers of tins 
Constitution wanted this stopped and to do it they 
inserted this section which includes the Protestant 
church also. Of course Protestant churches wiU ex¬ 
perience no inconvemence, no disadvantage in the 
adoption of this provision, because they rarely, if 
ever, receive such gifts or devises. I am not arguing 
for or against any religious organization, but simply 
explaining the Constitution in its relations to the 
general principles of religious liberty. And I must 
say, in my opinion, this is a violation 
not only of the liberties of conscience, as 
guaranteed by section nine of the Bill of Rights, 
where it is said that no human authority can control 
or interfere with the rights of conscience, but also of 
section one of the same Bill of Rights, wherein it is 
stated “that all men are endowed by their Creator 
with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, 
liberty,’the enjoyment of the fruits of their owm labor 
and the pursuits ot happiness.” If we endorse this 
action, God only knows what may come hereafter. 
The next Convention may prescribe how we should 
dispose of our property in detail, and what religion 
we shall and shall not sustain. The motives that 
actuated the incorporating of this doctrine in this 
Constitution, were not those of a very liberal states¬ 
manship for it is, as I have shown, apparent that the 
infringement of liberty was enacted simply to pre¬ 
vent any citizen, in the language of the 
distinguished leader in the Convention, Mr. Drake, 
“ to aid in sustaining an ecclesiastical establishment, 
the principal element of whose strength is its wealth; 
which is, in fact, a vast money-making machine; and 
whose wealth, swelling in amount day by day, and 
managed by a single undisputed will, evermore works 
to one sole end of building up and perpetuating the 
power of a hieraracy, which, through all its ranks, 
owes a sworn and unqualified allegiance to its abso¬ 
lute head in Rome, and whose organization, instincts 
and purposes are not in alliance with democratic lib¬ 
erty, or in sympathy with the spirit of Republican in¬ 
stitutions.” 

Let us look a little further into this section nine: 







r 


11 


9. That all men have a natural and indefeasible 
right to worship Almighty God according to the dic¬ 
tates of their own consciences; that*no person can, 
on account of his religious opinions, be rendered ine¬ 
ligible to any office of trust or profit under this State, 
nor be disqualified from testifying, or from serving as 
a juror; that no human authority can control or in¬ 
terfere with the rights of conscience, and that no per¬ 
son ought, by any law, to be molested in his person 
or estate, on account of his religious persuasion or 
profession; hut the liberty of consci&ice hereby se¬ 
cured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of 
licentiousness, nor to justify practices inconsistent 
with the good order, peace or safety of the State, or 
with the rights of others, 

^ There must have been some apprehension of an 
emigration of Mormons to this State, judging from 
the tenacity with which certain members of the Con¬ 
vention held to the necessity of retaining this quali¬ 
fying clause. And why insert this quahfjdngclause? 
Is there no danger of its admitting legislative inter¬ 
ference with actions that do not accord with the 
views of certain persons, upon the ground that they 
interfere with the peace ol the State and the rights 
of others? There is no telling what construction 
may be placed upon this qualifying clause, and any 
such indefinite proviso should not be allowed in the 
Bill of Rights. It is enough simply to mate the de¬ 
claration, and leave it for the Courts to pimish, ac¬ 
cording to law, acts inconsistent with the good order, 
peace or safety of the State or the rights of others. 
I pray Heaven that in this country we may never 
have religious-political difficulties. But if men will 
so far forget the lessons of experience as 
to advocate measures hke those we have been 
reviewing, wherein the State professes to at¬ 
tack the Church, it matters not in what 
branch, it is but natural to • suppose 
that the church may be led to enter the arena of 
politics to gain control of the State; then farewell for¬ 
ever to peace and prosperity. 

The districting system as provided in this Constitu¬ 
tion is impracticable and will prove a source of fraud 
and corruption. I shall not quote the section regula¬ 
ting it, suffice it to say that it provides that the 
county of St. Louis, for instance, shall be divided into 
a number of districts, equal to the number of repre¬ 
sentatives that she is entitled to. We are now enti¬ 
tled to twelve, consequently the county will be divi¬ 
ded into twelve districts. Each representative must 
be a resident of the district in which he runs, and the 
elector votes only for one representative, that of his 
own district. It is to be done in about the same man¬ 
ner that you elect a common councilman. The 
county Court specifies the boundaries of the various 
districts, and they can change them whenever they 
think best. In the first place you can easily see how 
troublesome this system will be; and, in the second 
place, you can easily perceive what a field is here 
left open for fraud ond corruption. Every party in 
the ascendency to retain their power will 
take measures to have a redistricting to suit their 
vsdshes and obtain their ends. It may be that the 
Judge is honest but at the same time few of them 
would be likely to think otherwise than that it was 
really to the benefit of the public to have a new dis¬ 
tricting whenever it was necessary to gain a repre¬ 


sentative who really was of the same “principles” as 
himself—which “principles” of course are patjiotic, 
and which he would “die for,” if necessary, to pro¬ 
mulgate. This is decidedly wrong. Constitu¬ 
tions should bo framed above all things so that 
mere parties could not use them as a machinery to 
perpetuate xxjwer. 

The same thing can be said of the districting for 
Senators. I have mentioned it only in connection 
with our county and city, as an illustration. The 
same system is prescribed for the whole State. Each 
county sufficiently populous to have more than one 
representative, shall be divided by the County Court 
into as many districts as she is entitled to represen¬ 
tatives, and the same objections apply to it elsewhere 
as here. 

Skc. 12. The sessions of each House shall be held 
with open doors, except in cases which require secrecy. 

This is wrong. It is copied from the old Constitu¬ 
tion, but it should not be in our organic law. We 
want no more secret sessions either of the House or 
Senate. The old system in the States of having exe¬ 
cutive sessions secret should be abolished. The peo¬ 
ple should know every appointment that the Govern¬ 
or sends in for confirmation and furthermore the 
appointees and the people should know what their 
Representatives say for or against them. This sys- 
has been a surce of unmitigated wrong to good men, 
affording cowards the opportunity of saying things 
they would not dare to say if their remarks would be 
given publicity. It smacks too much of the Star Cham¬ 
ber. If we had ever to consider foreign relations it 
might be different. 

In our Government the main principle evolved is 
that majorities rule. The Constitution puts re¬ 
strictions upon the people in opposition to 
this principle in the following instances. 
In article IV, section 30, it prevents the General 
Assembly from removing a county seat without a two- 
thirds majority vote for the same in the county. In 
section 14 it prescribes that no county, city or town, 
shall become a stockholder in or loan its credits to any 
company, association or corporation, unless two-thirds 
of the qualified voters of such county, city or town 
shall assent thereto. 

Art. XI. Sec. 13. The credit of the State shall not 
be given or loaned in aid of any person, association or 
corporation; nor shall the State hereafter become a 
stockholder in any corporation or association, except 
for the purposes of receiving loans heretofore extend¬ 
ed to certain raiiroad corporations by the State. 

Sec. in. The General Assembly shall have no power, 
for any purpose whatever, to release the lien held by 
the State upon any railroad. 

Why incorporate these restrictions in the organic 
law? Is it because it would be injudicious for the 
General Assembly to do so now? Suppose it would be 
impolitic for the Legislature to do so to-day, is it 
any criterion that it may not be 

very wise for them to do so to¬ 
morrow. A Constitution should not be make for 
a day, it should be made for all time. And though 
we might all oppose such action upon the part of our 
legislature during our present condition, we might 
demand it of them at a future time. The sections 
read more like the resolutions that usually pass as 








12 


part and parcel of a party platform, at a party con¬ 
vention, than as provisions in an organic law. 

Sec. 16. No property, real or personal, shall be 
exempt from taxation, except such as may be used 
exclusively for public schools, and such as may be¬ 
long to the United States, to this State, to counties, 
or to municipal corporations within the State. 

Under the old Constitution, the Legislature has 
unlimited power upon the subject of taxation. It 
simply specifies that all property subject to taxation 
shall be taxed in proportion to its value. And it is 
perfectly right that the Legislature should be so un¬ 
trammelled, for the manner, mode and quantum 
of taxation should be regulated to suit the 
public wants and requirements. At no time 
during the past, be it said to the glory of 
our State, has it been deemed necessary to 
tax the entire personal effects of a person, nor such 
institutions as hospitals for the sick, churches, chap¬ 
els and other public buildings for religious worship 
with their furniture and equipnlents, cemeteries and 
graveyards, set apart for that purpose only. Being 
so unrestricted upon this subject of taxation our Leg¬ 
islature has very wisely exempted certain necessary 
utensils for a man’s domestic use, and used in gain¬ 
ing a livlihood. But this clause above quoted com¬ 
pels the taxation of all property in the State, except 
that used for public schools. The Legislature has no 
alternative but to pass laws to carry out the inhuman 
and barbarous system. The widow who earns her 
scanty fare by the hard labor of the wash-tub cannot 
escape the call of the tax Collector; the little furni¬ 
ture must be returned to the Assessor, and she must 
seek the office of the Collector to save from levy and 
sale her household goods. The mechanic and the 
artisan, the prop and powder of the State, must pay a 
tax upon the implements ot his trade—no property 
real or personal is exempt, and the Tax Collector wil 
become as loathsome a creature in this land of 
freedom as the bailiff who distrains for rent on an op¬ 
pressed tenantry in Ireland. I do not seriously be¬ 
lieve that these men knew the force a!nd meaning of 
this section when they passed it. If they did, they 
were men having little sympathy with the struggling 
masses of our land—with few fine impulses of gener¬ 
osity-hard of heart, cold, selfish, and bigoted in soul! 
After noting this objection to this clause, it is almost 
unnecessary to mention the fact that it makes our 
State a money changer in the house Of our God! It 
puts the hand of the Tax Collector upon the utensils 
from which the typical blood of the Redeemer moist¬ 
ens the lips of the devout penitent. It exacts dues 
from the volume of Holy Writ, and profanes the sanc¬ 
tuary of refigion with the miser’s exactions! A fine 
subject for a historical painting! The pencil of a 
Kaulbach might justly enshrine it. He would typify 
the genius of Missouri sitting as a vampire at mid¬ 
night among the tombstones of the dead, surrounded 
by ghoul-like tax-gatherers, and counting, with 
gleaming eyes, tne collected treasure, while 
in the far distance to the left would be 
seen a long train of weeping little orphans, 
with the halt, the lame and the blind; and 
far to the right a motley throng of strong men and 
frail women looking on with sombre and vengeful 
visages, and from whom seemed to come weeping and 
wailing and gnashing of teeth. But to relieve this 


horrid scone and note the full historic cycle, above, 
high over this vampire, would be, in glorious efful¬ 
gence, the superb form of Justice, tearing to shreds 
and tatters and casting to the four winds of Heaven 
this most foul abortion yclept a new Constitution! 

Art. VIII. Sec. 6. Dues from private corporations 
shall be secured by such means as may be pre¬ 
scribed by law; but in all cases each stockholder shall 
be individually liable, over and above all stock by 
him or her owned and any amount unpaid thereon, 
in a further sum at least equal in amount to such 
stock. 

Why this section was inserted it was hard to toll. 
We have been laboring for years to remove the in¬ 
cumbrance of slavery from the State, because it 
retarded the influx of imnoigration and capital. 
And if ever there was a State that needed 
the influx of these two Important elements 
of progress and wealth, it is klissouri. Here is a 
perfect paradise—a land flowing with milk and 
honey—and here is room for millions of people; and 
at the very time when we are aoout to start forward 
in a glorious career, we are to be confined and bound 
by such legislation as this. And God knows, if this 
was the only provision inimical to our peace, pros¬ 
perity and advancement, I would not object so much 
to this. But this is in um’son with the spirit of this 
Constitution. One would think that it was formed 
expressly to retard our development rather than ad¬ 
vance it. Capital is naturally cautious; and here, 
when we want our rich mines to send forth their 
wealth and have scattered plenty and prosperity, our 
Constitution seriously attempts to frighten it off. 
While surrounded by rivals on aU sides who are 
moved by a laudable and just ambition to beat us in 
the march of success and glory, ought v/e not rather 
to legislate in the most liberal manner to encourage 
investments in the various enterprises so needful to 
the development of our resources. At least the Con¬ 
vention should have not restricted the Legislature in 
this matter, but left it power to pass such laws as 
may be hereafter deemed necessary to our wants. I 
cannot dwell longer upon this section, but I think it 
one of the most objectionable features in this docu¬ 
ment. 

There are some other minor points of objection in 
this Constitution, but I pass them over and come to 
the main reason why I oppose it, and why all Radicals 
should do so. It embodies no new idea of freedom or 
civilization, but aims to perpetuate the prejudices of 
the hour. Instead of leaving the question of races at 
least an open question, it initiates a retrograde move¬ 
ment to the slavery standpoint, by asserting that cit¬ 
izenship or the elective franchise should be the co¬ 
relative of color. Slavery in the Republic of America 
is dead. It died upon battle-fields, ranking in his¬ 
toric grandeur with any the world has witnessed. It 
was throttled because it was a great crime and be¬ 
cause a great criminal. It was born, a wee thing, 
weak, sickly and harmless in the cradle of compro¬ 
mise. It was suckled and nursed into strength and 
arrogant manhood by prejudice. Prejudice infused 
into the body politic—upon no basis but 
that of the color of the skin—made it great, 
made it nigh unto all powerful, so powerful 
that it assaulted with fratricidal hands the Repub¬ 
lic of our fathers, and cleaved to the earth a million 






13 


of noble souls wlio guarded tbe highway to the na¬ 
tion’s heart. The public man who now would seek 
to retain still by the teachings in a constitution that 
same prejudice in the body politic, is unworthy of 
confidence, is a traitor to the dead who died to erad¬ 
icate it, and should receive the condemnation of all 
good men. It was a cowardly act to retain this relic 
of barbarism in this instrument; to belie, when 
standing amid the dead bodies of hundreds of thou¬ 
sands of - heroes who fought to destroy it, the solemn 
words of the Declaration of Independence, that “ all 
men are created free and equal.” You sneakingly 
put in the Avord white in every clause excepting 
where citizens must do military service. There you 
excluded it. You need the negro to fight your bat¬ 
tles, to stand in the tempest of war; yet you can as¬ 
sure him in the long future of no chance for him to 
exercise the rights of a citizen. Why could you not 
have left it an open question tor him? He has aU 
the disadvantages, you the advantages. Were you 
afraid that he might reach some position of respecta¬ 
bility in the land? Has he not a right to the privi¬ 
lege at least of gaining it if he can? 

The late President, about four years ago, raised 
with his own hand the national fiag over Independ¬ 
ence Hall, Philadelphia, and on the occasion said: 
“ 1 have often inquired of myself what great principle 
or idea it was that kept this Confederacy so long to¬ 
gether. It was something in the Declaration of Inde- 
Iiendence, giving liberty not only to the people of this 
country, but hope to the world for aU future time. 
It was that which gave promise that, in due time, the 
weights should be lifted from the shoulders of all 
men, and that all should have an equal chance. * * * 
How, my friends, can this country be saved upon that 
basis? If it can, 1 will consider myself one of the 
happiest men in the world if I can help to save it. 
But, if this country cannot be saved without giving 
up that principle—I was about to say I would rather 
be assassinated on this spot than to surrender it.” 
And, my friends, he never surrendered it, for in the 
last words that he addressed publicly to the world, 
when looking over the history of four years 
from the time of saying the above, with 
ail its varying incidents and weighty influences, and 
the shout of victory ringing throughout the land, he 
says, in speaking of the Louisiana Government: “1 
would myself prefer that it (the elective franchise) 
were now conferred on the very intelligent colored 
man, and those who serve our cause as soldiers.” But 
this principle is surrendered by this Convention; they 
incorporate in this, the organic law, a recognition of 
the right of this race distinction; they make them¬ 
selves a party to the sustaining and protecting of this 
abominable prejudice qf race and class and color. 
They put into this Constitution the statement that 
all men are not created free and equal before the law; 
that certain of them should have no opportunity to 
realize the enjoyment of citizenship, not by reason of 
any crime, but because there is a prejudice against 
them, by reason of the teachings of past party poli¬ 
cies; and the prejudice, whether right or wrong, 
must not be left open to combat in the Legislature, 
but must be recognized and enshrined in the organic 
law, to be kept alive, and to teach our chil¬ 
dren that to be born white is not only to 
come from progenitors of greater historical 


renown but that the Republic’s law discriminates in 
their fhvor in the race of civilization. Why make it 
easier for the strong race to succeed, than the weak 
and the feeble? Why ask that custom, that iron- 
willed master, should still rule us against the rights 
of a race bom of a common God, and journeying to a 
common bourne? Is not the laborer worthy of his hire 
in the sight of Heaven, and should he not be in the 
sight of man? You invoke, in the first clause of this 
Constitution, God’s blessing upon it and attribute 
it (as it were) to him. It is a blasphemy, for He rec¬ 
ognizes not nor cherishes in the hearts of men ven- 
gance, evil passion, selfishness and the arrogance of a 
pride that closes the door of charity against the 
meek and lowly! By the sacred memory of that 
long array of patriot heroes who marched into death 
and whose bones lie bleaching on the battle-fields of 
our land; by the very soil saturated by the blood of 
heroes, the purple currents of some of whom were 
of the darkest hue and complexion; by the holy 
principle of right as God gives us to know the 
right, let every American swear that in 
this broad land, under the eyes of a 
durable Constitution, the boon of liberty thall de¬ 
scend like the gentle dews of Heaven upon all races 
of the sons and daughters of men: It is necessary in 
this country to eradicate the prejudice against the 
colored man—as necessary for the benefit of ourselves 
as for his. It can be done only by destroying that 
prejudice by reason and discussion. In a Republic 
all power should be gained in this way, for error, al¬ 
ways pernicious, will be overcome if reason and truth 
are left to combat it. But in this Constitution pre¬ 
tended to be a ^Radical Constitution, strange to say, 
the people are restrained to a certain extent from 
combating this error, or, in other words, the State 
takes part in favor of error, recognizes it, and guards 
it by requiring that it be fought against over breast¬ 
works of Constitutional restrictions, and that very 
error the appendage of slavery, which radical men have 
talked so much of eradicating, root and branch, and 
casting to the swine. The ingenuity of the members 
of this Convention was exercised to its 
fuU extent to punish all persons the least 
tainted with sentiments against the Gov¬ 
ernment, and that desire, as has been shown, 
was pricked on by vengeance. It is to be feared that 
their action was not altogether actuated by*love of a 
principle involved. But in doing so, it strikes me 
that they “strained at a gnat and swallowed a 
camel.” They punish rebels, or attempt to do so, but 
leave a vestige of the curse of the rebellion still In 
life and being, and volunteer their support to sustain 
it. They restrict the full force even of the emancipa¬ 
tion ordinance, by inserting in this thing that the 
prejudice which sustained and gave hfe-blood to sla¬ 
very shall still exist. They were elected to kill sla¬ 
very, and they only partially did that. If they had 
only pssaed the Ordinance of Emancipation and 
amended the old Constitution by striking out the word 
white, and gone home, they would have adhered to 
principle and done more good than if they had passed 
the most stringent disfranchisement ordinance and 
stiU left this vestige of slavery—a race distinction. 
The disfranchisement of rebels is claimed as a 
necessary party measure to retain power 
The destruction of slavery has been deemed a 





u 


measure of pure principle. They adopted 
the former for party purijoses, hut repudiated the 
question of principle that the Radical party has al¬ 
ways claimed to fight for. If the great highways of 
the Republic leading to success, prosperity and honor 
had been left an open question to the people as to 
how they shall regulate the mode of travel thereon, 
no objection could or would be made. It is for the peo¬ 
ple to decide these questions. It is for men to go for 
or against what they think is right or VTong. Many 
sensible men oppose the idea of granting immediate 
negro suffrage. Among the friends of the measure, I 
believe there are few but believe in a system such as 
indorsed by Mr. Lincoln in the passage previously 
quoted; but it matters not—the question here is, why 
debar the hope which cherishes effort to this class by 
constitutional restriction, and placed therein by a 
party which claims to be progressive, on this very 
question above all others. Out upon such hypocrisy! 
Better that some rebels go unpunished than that this 
cowardly recreancy to principle and abominable po¬ 
litical heresy be indorsed as an organic law by the 
Radicals of Missouri! 

“But,” says every blind supporter of this Constitu¬ 
tion whenever an argument is offered against it, “ it 
disfranchises rebels, and, as to the objections to it, they 
can easily be remedied because of the facility of amend¬ 
ment afforded.” My friends, tliis is one of the most 
objectionable features of this Constitution. It is the 
stability of laws that gains them respect, and above 
all an organic law should be stable, liable to few 
changes, and revered by all parties. Let legislative 
conflicts be confined to legislative duties and ques¬ 
tions, and not prepare the way for a constant assault 
by every party gaining an ascendency against the 
Constitution. It wiU breed innumerable troubles, this 
idea among the people that the Constitution is like a 
legislative enactment, to be repealed or changed by a 
majority of such party as may for the time bemg have 
power. Itwill subject it to constant fluctuations, and 
parties will govern the Constitution instead of the 
Constitution governing parties. And in the rapid 
changes and constant conflicts over it, the masses will 
lose all respect and reverence for their organic law. 
Tlie common law to-day, which extends its benign 
influence over us, has its force and effect from the re¬ 
spect that the Courts and the people have for it, and 
the known'pernicious effects that would be consequent 
in a constant departure from its precedent. If this 
Constitution is adopted, I look for no other question to 
divide the people of Missouri as long as it stands, but 
questions involved in amendments offered to it. Salu- 
tory legislation wiU be neglected,to quarrel and wrangle 
over the construction of the organic law. The Le¬ 
gislature will find itself tied and restricted in every 
avenue that leads to the development and progress 
of this great State. And, to throw off the shackles, 
a constant assault may be anticipated upon the Con¬ 
stitution. That this is offered as an apology by the 
framers and supporters of this document, bespeaks 
for them little reflection or statesmanship. It is one 
of the most pernicious features in it. 

And now, my friends, let us see how stands the 
old Constitution in comparison with this. It is 
claimed, in the first place (and I shall take the ad¬ 
vantages claimed for the new Constitution over tlie 
old one, as set forth by the President of the late Con¬ 


vention, Mr. Krekel, and others), that the new Con¬ 
stitution “ establishes our relations to the Federal 
Government so firmly, and defines them so clearly, 
that they cannot be shaken or misinterpreted.” 

It is not necessary that the Constitution should do 
that. The question of o\ir relations to the Federal 
Government has just been settled by the deteat of 
this rebellion, and is settled by a power far above 
the Convention, or Constitution of any State in 
the Union. It is, in fact, rather an impu¬ 
dent assumption to so talk. The Government 
of the Republic settles that without regard 
to State Constitutions. So here is no advantage over 
the old Constitution at all. Secondly, It is claimed 
that by this one we are secured from ever having to 
pay for slaves emancipated. “Should the opposition,” 
says Mr. Krekel, “obtain power, this might be a 
most important question, for the former owners of 
negro property would then doubtless claim that they 
had been upjustly deprived of it, and might pass laws 
taxing the people to recompense the late slaveholders. 
If the new Constitution were ratified, this would be 
most effectually remedied.” Ah, is this the case? To 
see a person occupping the responsible position that 
the President of the late Convention does make so 
egregious a blunder, is lamentable to say the least. 
The statement is false in every particular. The new 
Constitution requires only a majority to amend it, 
whereas the old one requires a two-thirds majority. 
There is no power, by any construction that can be 
placed upon any clause in the old Constitution for 
the Legislature to pay for slaves emancipated by the 
late Convention. It could only be done by an amend¬ 
ment to that Constitution; and if the “opposition” 
ever got the ascendency in the Legislature and State 
by a bare majority, they could amend the new 
Constitution, and provide for the pa 5 Tnent of slaves; 
whereas by the better, the old one, it would require a 
two-thirds majority. Bosh! The old is clearly the 
better in tliis respect, the opiuion of a United States 
District Judge to the contrary notwithstanding. 
Thirdly. It is claimed to be an improvement upon the 
old one, because by it the person convicted of treason 
shall not only forfeit his estate for life bat forever; 
in other words, it is considered by the advocates of 
this document that the punishment of the innocent 
children of a rebel father is an advancement in the 
progressive spirit of Christianity and civilization, 
worthy of all praise and an indorsement by the 
people of the State. I beg leave, with due modesty, 
to dissent from the opinion that such a brutal doc¬ 
trine is an advancement towards the right. It has 
been adopted by some tyrants to their everlasting in¬ 
famy, but never as yet by the Gowemmerit of the 
United States or any State. It may be that Missouri 
is to be the first to inaugurate it in this land of liber¬ 
ty and stand alone with the despicable brand upon 
her brow. If so shame will come upon the people. 
The old Constitution conforms to the Constitution ot 
the United States in this respect, and is preferable to 
the new. 

Fourthly. It is claimed to be better than the 
old one because the Executive is deprived of the 
right to exercise clemency in favor of any 
one convicted of treason. Herein it is simply 
claimed to be an advantage to the people to 
prevent the pardoning of a person, even though. 







15 


after conviction, it is clearly shown, by subsequent 
events proved, that he is innocent. Few men of sense 
will consider this as a great benefit or as an improve¬ 
ment upon the old Constitution, Perhaps it was put 
In with a forshadowing that Gov. Fletcher was likely 
to turn Copperhead and oppose the new Constitution. 
The other advantages (aside from the prohibition of 
special legislation, the only good feature in the entire 
document) claimed for this over the old one, such as 
that a person charged with the commission of a crime 
in or e county can be removed for trial into another 
county, and that no ofiicer shall receive more than 
$2,503 per annum for his services,are unworthy of no¬ 
tice in the discussion of an organic law. 

And now, to sum up, how stands it. These few 
things claimed as being an improvement upon the old 
Constitution—and really no improvement as I have 
shown—stand against all the monstrosities noted in 
my argument. For these we are to take this Consti¬ 
tution with all its faults. Never, no never! For it is 
vindictive and revengeful throughout; it interferes 
with the rights of conscience; it trenches upon indi¬ 
vidual liberty; it provides a corrupt system of dis¬ 
tricting; it hampers the developement of 
the State; it restricts and strikes down 
the best functions of the Legislature; 
it changes the immemorial customs and usages of 
law; it makes the original law subject to the control 
of party; it inaugurates a system of taxation entirely 
alien to our republican ideas of Government; and 
lastly, it perpetuates the foiilest blemish of a barbar¬ 
ous age—an anomaly and a crime in a Republic— 
class and race distinctions. There is none of these 
faults m the old Constitution. There is simply this 
distinction between the old and the new; the old 
one is not perhaps restrictive enough, the new one is 
entirely too much so. The advantage is with the one 
nearest to the great truth “that the world is gov¬ 
erned too much.” A lamentable emergency tliis, have 
individual arogance and assumption placed us in. A 
great State just freed from the incubus of slavery, 
ready and anxious to bound forward in a career of 
greatness and of glory, must be shackled again, and 
have attached to her car principles as repugnant as 
slavery itself! We want a Constitution—we must 
have a Constitution—but not this one. The war is 
ended, and the dawn of peace, glorious and beloved 


peace, spreads its wings once more over our distracted 
land. In the next six months we will learn more 
how to frame an organic law to meet the re¬ 
quirements of the new time than we have in 
as many years past. We have been used to war—we 
must become Used again to peace. We want one 
framed to promote peace and prosperity to the State, 
which this one will never do. Without malice, in calm¬ 
ness, without intolerance, without bigotry, without 
any of the passions that sully the individual, let alone 
the State, we want it constructed,/—a new Constitu¬ 
tion framed in simplicity, liberal, noble and grand, 
whose foundations shall be laid deep in the love and 
affections of the people, and against whoso broad base 
the waves of passion and partisan conflict may harm¬ 
lessly dfish and break! 

And how can we get it? Two plans suggest them¬ 
selves. We can either resort again to a Convention, 
or we can call upon the Legislature to draft one, at its 
next session, and present it to the people for ratifica¬ 
tion or rejection. The Legislature has equally the 
same power so to do as the Convention, and, if one 
were so framed by them and ratified by the people, it 
would be as binding as this one if ratified; or they 
could frame an entire new Constitution and pass it as 
amendatory to the old one. Another Convention at 
first thought is rather repugnant to most 
men, because of the unpardonable assumptions ot 
the last two. But rather than to go without 
a true and liberal Constitution, I would favor 
the calling of another Convention. But oiir duty 
now should be to defeat this document. And to the 
Radical party of Missouri I would say, if you look 
now, as you have heretofore, to the glory and ad¬ 
vancement oi your State and common country, exert 
aU power to kill this new Constitution. It is not 
your Constitution; you gave no warrant for its draft¬ 
ing and your principles are not recognized in it. It 
will, if adopted, ruin your State and destroy your 
party, and in its destruction there will rest a burning 
shame upon your record of infidelity to pledge and to 
principle. And come what may, if this Constitution 
Is adopted, as a citizen of Missouri, where I expect to 
live and die and be buried,! here make a solemn pledge 
that I will never relax in determination or effort until 
this foul thing is expunged from the statute books of 
my State, and gibbetted as a common carrion! 




0 033 239 093 4 



' 5 . 






r 


\ 

I 


\ ,<■. 




